1. fourth generation evaluation: on the crest of a wave or heading for the rocks? Insider Research Julie Scholes & Alec Grant

2. Re-engineering 1350 pre reg students 26,000 person training days 116 wte academic 46 wte administrative staff clinical credibility clinical links teaching research and practice development

3. Context massification widened access academic support pastoral care market competitors partnerships with Trusts promoting independent learners learning nursing modeling care

4. Purpose of re-engineering identify strategies that enable learner centred approaches as the core of our activity re-define time for scholarly activity education to facilitate excellence in health care practice

5. to developcorporate thinkingabout re-engineering to embrace different perspectives and use this process as the dynamic force for change liberate the potentialof staff and students so they might achieve academic, professional and personal fulfillment Aims project value diversitybut harness these towards the collective goals of the organisation facilitate transitions for individuals

6. to demonstratethrough realising the core characteristics of the research (open informed inclusive) one model of scholarly activity ensure the research team are consistent and clear and that theprocess is transparentthat allows for multiple perspectives to be heard, acknowledged and understood empower educate enfranchise

7. see and understandalternative perspectivesand develop new meaning constructionsto define the way forward fourth generation evaluation

8. fourth generation evaluation constructivist paradigm no such thing as an objective fact values clarification claims concerns issues

9. Values Clarification Claims: favourable assertions made by stakeholders about re-engineering Concerns: unfavourable assertions made by stakeholders about re-engineering Issues: topics over which reasonable persons may disagree

10. CCIs Stakeholder group Stakeholder group CCIs CCIs CCIs Stakeholder group Stakeholder group CCIs iterativeprocess hermaneutic dialogue

11. CCIs Stakeholder group Stakeholder group iterativeprocess CCIs CCIs hermaneutic dialogue CCIs Stakeholder group Stakeholder group CCIs negotiation evaluation / audit/ search to provide evidence to refute / support contested CCIs Stakeholder group unresolved hermaneutic dialogue CCIs Stakeholder group

12. highlyidealistic unrealisticexpectations the organisation as anemotional arena unresolved / contested CCIs force for disintegration rather than inclusion and consensus unifying participative enabling

13. risks too much investment in the process detracts from the purpose or intended outcomes quiet voices do not get heard exposes vulnerability (back stage reality) trivialised defensively - potential for sabotage

14. role of the evaluator is toorchestrate negotiationand facilitate discussion in a climate of high challenge and context of high support negotiation is managed in abalanced and constructiveway research contract anonymity and privacy

15. ? Questions issues for discussion what tensions may emerge between manager and evaluator responsibilities how to resist being seduced into thehero rescuerrole hero or villain at conclusion: our future in the organisation …